Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 3 - Counterclaims

  • Tomoko Ishikawa, Nagoya University, Japan
  • Book:
    Corporate Environmental Responsibility in Investor-State Dispute Settlement
    Published online:
    24 November 2022
    Print publication:
    08 December 2022, pp 57-86

  • Summary

    This chapter, together with Chapters 4 and 5, discusses the host state’s counterclaims against the claimant investor. It first discusses the benefits and obstacles of the use of counterclaims by comparing their use with the option of pursuing investors’ legal responsibility through the host state’s own courts. It then discusses the normative grounds for the host state’s environmental counterclaims in the light of the existence of the interests of the victims. Based on assessments of (a) the state’s obligation to protect against private persons’ human rights abuses and (b) the parens patriae doctrine developed in international and certain domestic jurisprudence, it is concluded that the host state has the right to pursue investors’ responsibility both in its own right and on behalf of the victims. It then proceeds to examine whether there are circumstances in which the admissibility of such counterclaims should be denied in light of the victims’ due process rights. This question is answered in the positive, and the factors that make the counterclaim inadmissible on this ground are identified.